Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Howlin
I don't get the connection between these paragraphs and the 80 percent number.

No doubt, from this source and other sources and common sense, some declined because they didn't want to grow through the vicious vitriolic process.

But Dobson was no way going to put numbers on that.

His 80 percent number was on the only thing that would be noncontroversial here - the proportion that was male.

169 posted on 10/11/2005 9:48:22 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies ]


To: ThePythonicCow

***They weren't HIS number:

But we also talked about something else, and I think this is the first time this has been disclosed. Some of the other candidates who had been on that short list, and that many conservatives are now upset about were highly qualified individuals that had been passed over. Well, what Karl told me is that some of those individuals took themselves off that list and they would not allow their names to be considered, because the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter, that they didn’t want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it.



So, even today, many conservatives and many of ‘em friends of mine, are being interviewed on talk shows and national television programs. And they’re saying, “Why didn’t the President appoint so-and-so? He or she would have been great. They had a wonderful judicial record. They would have been the kind of person we’ve been hoping and working and praying for to be on the Court. Well, it very well may be that those individuals didn’t want to be appointed.



John: For understandable reasons, because the grilling that they get in that confirmation process is just brutal.



JCD: Well, it’s true. The Democrats have so politicized that process that it’s become an ordeal and many people just don’t want to go through that. And I’m not sure I blame them. So, Karl Rove shared some of that with me. He also made it clear that the President was looking for a certain kind of candidate, namely a woman to replace Justice O’Connor. And you can imagine what that did to the short list. That cut it…I haven’t looked at who I think might have been on that short list, because Karl didn’t tell me who was not willing to be considered.



But that many have cut it by 80 percent right there. But I was not gonna be the one to reveal this. I knew that people would eventually be aware of some of that information, but I didn’t think I had the right to say it. And so, I made my comment.


193 posted on 10/11/2005 9:53:25 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies ]

To: ThePythonicCow
His 80 percent number was on the only thing that would be noncontroversial here - the proportion that was male.

Pukin Dog said "THE SHORT LIST WAS 5 WOMEN, 3 declined, 1 was disqualified on her history, and Miers was left holding the trophy."

That's 80% fallout on a 5 item list.

204 posted on 10/11/2005 9:55:34 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson